The Prince During the Renaissance period, the state came to be regarded as something that was made and is secular. Machiavelli, considered today as the founder of modern political science, was one of those who opened up this new route by dedicating himself in explaining ideas and theories regarding politics. But what made Machiavelli very famous in the world of politics is his most influential and controversial book "The Prince". He wrote this book based on his analysis of political leaders in the government during his time. It focuses on discussing necessary characteristics of the prince to successfully acquire and maintain its political power highlighting his well-known maxim, "the end justifies the means". Although his work is renowned …show more content…
In here, Machiavelli talks about two methods of becoming a prince that is to be chosen by the private citizens or by means of a criminal act. However, this chapter only focused on the latter way of becoming a ruler since the former way can be understood easily. In illustrating the arguments, Machiavelli used two characters of persons who performed crimes to attain principality. The first one is Agathocles, a military commander in Syracuse who is according to Machiavelli possesses abilities that made him a prince but in a nonvirtuous way, because to become a ruler, he massacred the leading citizens and the Senate after inviting them together for a meeting. Second is Oliverotto of Fermo, who also became a military commander and killed citizens amid feast with the assistance of his troopers who later terrorized the city for submission. These kinds of acts what Machiavelli pertains to as criminal means. He argued that these cruel acts, though evil, maybe be justified if done at once to build a prince's power and then swung to the regale of his people. Moreover, the prince having attained the principality is required to live with his subjects and should do all the injuries at once, if not, it is no longer acceptable. This second argument resembles Machiavelli's famous phrase “the end justifies the means”, showing that he approves bad behavior as long as at the end it will turn …show more content…
For example, in my paper, I was able to talk about principalities and territory, ways to acquire power and security. Machiavelli had discussed things that are relevant, existing and we need to consider for today. Although his book is often seen as ruthless and immoral, his arguments actually have sense and are supported by good examples and theories. Moreover, his views about politics and power is unique and different from others making the book both interesting and amusing at the same time to read since you will be able to discover and encounter new
The Prince and Julius Caesar Paper The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a book written to inform readers about political power. It is intended to explain how to gain political power and maintain that power over a governed population. Although much of the book involves the acquirement of power through manipulative and violent ways, Machiavelli explains how the use of unvirtuous acts is not the only way to gain power.
Otto von Bismarck Otto von Bismarck was the first chancellor of the German Empire. He was a master strategist who used realpolitik. As an aristocrat, he “adopted the liberal goal of national unity, giving the German Empire a broad political base” (Background essay). Otto von Bismarck could be considered Machiavelli's model of the ideal ruler in that, he was feared by his people and he used any ends to justify the tactics he used in bringing about the unification of the German states. Niccolò Machiavelli was a diplomat for many years in Italy’s Florentine Republic during the Medici family’s exile.
In Niccolo Machiavelli's book, The Prince (1513), he evaluates on how a prince can be a successful leader. Machiavelli’s purpose of this guidebook was to construct his argument to the rising ruler Giuliano de Medici for when he comes to power in Florence. He adopts a casual but authoritative tone in order to convince the prince that Machiavelli’s evaluation on how to be the best prince, is the right thing for the prince to do without coming off as he knows more than the prince or is trying to intimidate him.. Machiavelli’s reference to previous rulers and whether their tactics failed or succeeded helps to benefit his credibility along with his allusion to historic text. He appeals to our logic by simply stating a prince can only do what is within his power to control, and his use of an analogy furthers his argument.
Then for Machiavelli he talks about how a prince should show no fear instead for him to show that he is the one with power. That a prince's people should fear him. Both authors go on to talk on how their people react based on the prince and princesse act. The authors then go on to explain how they should view and run their people. Both authors also reflect the fact that the way their people are going to act towards them is mainly based off of how they treat them.
Machiavelli argues the perfect prince will be both feared and loved by his people, and if unable to be both he will make himself feared and not hated. Machiavelli believes it is much safer to be feared than to be loved because people are less likely to offend and stand up against strong characters, also people are less concerned in offending a prince who has made himself loved. Accordingly, Machiavelli believes generosity is harmful to your reputation and the choice between being generous or stingy, merciful or cruel, honest or deceitful, should only be important if it aids the prince in political power. All in all, Machiavelli believes the ruler must be a great deceiver and do what is essential to uphold power over the
Machiavelli, The Prince Name: Institution: Introduction The book the Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli is an Italian piece of art that depicts the political class of Italy and how they interact to ensure democracy and workability in the state. The prince although written in the traditional aspects of Italy governance, it is believed to be the works of modern philosophy and political environment in which truth is more ideal than any abstract ideals. Machiavelli in his book is seen to distinguish authorities that hold power over the people as either republics or principalities. The principalities authorities were those believed to inherit authority from one generation
The Prince and the Discourses, by Machiavelli as a gift to the prince. Because it was the best thing that Niccolo Machiavelli could give to him. He was trying to teach the prince ways to stay in power. Machiavelli even stated it himself “I can consider of this subject, discussing what a principality is, the variety of such states, how they are won, how they are held, and how they are lost” (Machiavelli xxiv). The main focus of his work was with monarchies because he did not care for republics.
One aspect of Machiavelli’s theory which significantly contributes to his reputation as the “philosopher of evil,” is his advice to the prince on keeping their word to the public. In chapter eighteen, Machiavelli states, “a wise ruler cannot, and should not, keep his word when doing so is to his disadvantage, and when the reasons that led him to promise to do so no longer apply” (pg. 37). To simplify, Machiavelli says princes are obligated to lie in certain circumstances. He also states that while it is unnecessary for the prince to have positive qualities, such as honesty, trustworthiness, sympathy, compassion, or be religious, it is essential for the prince to be viewed so by the public (pg. 37). While many people argue that Machiavelli’s legitimization of lying and deception in politics is immoral, I argue the opposite.
In the early sixteenth century there were two people that wrote about political power and the correct way to rule, both of these people would have great influence on their time period as well as future ones. Machiavelli was a secretary who worked for the Medicis, after the Medici family was expelled from the city he would reflect on what he thought of politics and how he thought they should be by writing The Prince, it would become a very famous book even in the present day. His viewpoint on ruling was that a ruler must do whatever they can in order to improve the state no matter what, or in his words “The ends justify the means”(The Prince). Erasmus was a Dutch intellectual and leader of the Christian humanists who wrote a treatise on political
The Prince, written by Machiavelli, is a candid outline of how he believes leaders gain and keep power. Machiavelli uses examples of past leaders to determine traits that are necessary to rule successfully. Leaders such as the King of Naples and the Duke of Milan lacked military power, made their subjects hate them, or did not know how to protect themselves from the elite, causing them to lose power. He says that these rulers should blame laziness, not luck, for their failures. By looking at these historical successes and failures, Machiavelli is able to develop his own thoughts on how politics and leaders should be in the future.
Finally, according to Machiavelli’s The Prince, a good prince should have specific qualities, such as being merciful. It is said in The Prince that a prince should be thought of as merciful and not cruel. With this said, a prince should not overuse the subject of mercy.
Machiavelli also looks at how to become a prince in society,
Probably one of the most infamous and controversial ideologies of the 16th century, the prince by Machiavelli has been a reference for many great leaders and academicians since it was published. The book provides historically tested and proven principles of leadership. The prince has been described as a manual for those who want to win and retain power. While some may argue that leadership is an inherent trait in human, leaders are made, not born. Making a great leader out of a person is not just a matter of identifying the leadership traits, skill and talents of the individual, but harnessing the traits, develop them and eventually mastering how to be leader.
In this paragraph of the article, the writer delves into the true purpose behind Machiavelli's "The Prince". There are many different interpretations or theories about the work, one being that it is merely satirical, poking fun at the game of politics and all its corruption behind the scenes. Another theory is Machiavelli's intention for the work was to win back his position in political leadership, by persuading the politicians by things they wanted to hear but that he himself didn't necessarily believe. With Machiavelli, any of the possibilities could have been true, due to his sarcastic and cynical nature.
I. Machiavelli In his famous work the Prince Niccolo Machiavelli exposes what it takes to be a good prince and how only this good price and keep control over his state. There are many different qualities that make a man a good ruler but there are some that are more essential than others. In this work Machiavelli stresses the importance of being a warrior prince, a wise prince, and knowing how to navigate the duality of virtù and vices. Without these attributes there was no way that a prince could hold together their state and their people.